In the Matter of PRIMER ON ASCERTAINMENT OF COMMUNITY
PROBLEMS BY BROADCAST APPLICANTS,
PART I, SECTIONS IV-A AND IV-B OF FCC FORMS
Docket
No. 18774
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
33 F.C.C.2d 394
RELEASE-NUMBER: FCC 72-12
January 13, 1972 Released
Adopted January 5, 1972
JUDGES:
BY THE COMMISSION: COMMISSIONER JOHNSON DISSENTING AND ISSUING A STATEMENT;
COMMISSIONER H. REX LEE ABSENT.
OPINION:
[*394] 1. On
February 18, 1971, we adopted a Primer on the ascertainment of community problems
by broadcast applicants, 27 FCC 2d 650, 21 RR 2d 1507. Now before us is a
petition filed March 26, 1971, by the National Association of Broadcasters
(NAB) seeking reconsideration of answer 17 of the Primer.
2. Question and answer 17 of
the Primer are as follows:
Question: In consultations to
ascertain community problems, may a preprinted form or questionnaire be used?
Answer: Yes. A questionnaire
may serve as a useful guide for consultations with community leaders, but
cannot be used in lieu of personal consultations. Members of the general
public may be asked to fill out a questionnaire to be collected by the
applicant. If the applicant uses a form or questionnaire, a copy should
be submitted with the application.
The NAB
requests that answer 17 be amended "to permit broadcast applicants to make
use of mail surveys which involve the voluntary return of the questionnaire by
a stamped, self-addressed envelope supplied by the applicant-interviewer."
3. As we indicated in the
Report and Order in Docket No. 18774, 27 FCC 2d 650, 21 RR 2d 1507 (1971), in
which we adopted the Primer, consultations with members of the general public
are required. This was based on our belief that they may perceive
community problems differently than community leaders. n1 So that a wide range of their views would be known
and evaluated, we sought to assure that those members of the general public who
were consulted would be generally distributed throughout the population of the
city of license. This can, of course, be quite simply accomplished by
using a telephone directory to select members of the general public to be
called. On the other hand, we do not believe that the mailing of
questionnaires which are to be voluntarily returned by the person whose views
are sought will result in an appropriate distribution. For example, a
study of broadcast renewals submitted by one party, in response to our Notice
of Inquiry in this proceeding, found some [*395] instances where
the response was less than 25 percent from a very small sample. Thus, a
substantial question is raised as to whether there was a general
distribution. While we do not require statistical accuracy, we believe
that this factory reduces the efficacy of consultations with members of the
general public to a point where such consultations would serve little
purpose.
n1 See paragraph 20 of the Report
and Order in Docket No. 18774, adopting the Primer.
4. The NAB states, however,
that there are follow-up procedures for improving response rates and generally avoiding
the pitfalls we saw in the mailed questionnaire which was to be voluntarily
returned by the persons consulted. Our goal, as stated above, is to
assure that those members of the general public who are consulted are generally
distributed throughout the city of license. Therefore, if the applicant
can demonstrate that this goal can be reached by using mailed questionnaires
with appropriate follow-up procedures, he may rely on that method. But,
as a general rule, we believe that the considerations set out in paragraph two,
above, remain valid. Accordingly, answer 17 will be changed to read as
follows:
Answer: Yes. A questionnaire
may serve as a useful guide for consultations with community leaders, but
cannot be used in lieu personal consultations. Members of the general
public may be asked to fill out a questionnaire to be collected by the
applicant. The applicant may also permit members of the general public to
return the questionnaires by mail, but only if the applicant submits an appropriate
showing that this method has resulted in responses from members of the general
public who are generally distributed throughout the community to be
served. If the applicant uses a form or questionnaire, a copy should be
submitted with the application.
5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
that the petition for reconsideration filed by the National Association of
Broadcasters IS GRANTED to the extent indicated above.
FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, BEN F. WAPLE, Secretary.
DISSENT:
DISSENTING OPINION OF COMMISSIONER
NICHOLAS JOHNSON
The purpose of the Primer on
Ascertainment of Community Problems was not only to establish a mechanism for
determining these needs, but to open a channel for dialogue between licensees
and their community. By its action today in authorizing mailed
questionnaires rather than personal contact, the Commission has effectively
immunized licensees from the benefit of that contact. In an age of
impersonality, we are adding yet another barrage of computerized mailings,
primarily designed to eliminate the very personal contact that is so vital to
opening channels of dialogue.
There are other problems with the
change we authorize. Mailed questionnaires may be used if licensees
submit "an appropriate showing that this method has resulted in responses
from members of the general public who are generally distributed throughout the
community served." No where is there any indication of what constitutes an
"appropriate showing." I can envision our being further bogged down with
considerations of this nature which could easily be avoided by denying the
requested change.
Finally, the licensees -- and the
Commission by association -- are subject to the same criticisms made of the
1970 census. There, for the [*396] first time in census
history, questionnaires were mailed, and minority groups complained that this
mechanism diminished their statistical impact. Whether or not this was
the case, the charge itself seriously injured the credibility of the
census. It is anomalous that in an effort to bring licensees and
community groups together, we sanction a method which, if not by design, at
least by result threatens to inhibit this dialogue.
I dissent.